Re: the notion of counter-intuitiveness in relativistic physics

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> wrote:

Le 07/08/2024 à 22:22, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> wrote:
 

Le 07/08/2024 à 16:25, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :

On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 13:18:33 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

>
Le 07/08/2024 à 12:09, film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) a écrit :

>
Your biggest problem at this time is that you cannot understand the
explanations given to you.

>
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?74ipUL6JcQu72w-mbGQ7BbVp7kU@jntp/Data.Med

ia:

1>

>
I laughed.
>
R.H.

 
Hmm, doesn't look like a laugh.  Maybe an OMG!  Meaning, you just
realized that Jan is right.  Well, maybe a laugh would be appropriate,
too, meaning "how could I have been so wrong!"
 
You come up with your D'=D.sqrt[(1+Vo/c)/(1-Vo/c)], which isn't length
contraction but Doppler shift, which is dependent on the sign of your
Vo.  LC is NOT so dependent.  It would be a VERY strange universe if
it were.

 
You say: "it's a Doppler shift".
And for sqrt(1-Vo?/c?)?
Isn't it a Doppler shift?
Yes, it's also a Doppler shift.
This is what Hachel calls the "internal Doppler effect".
Relativists call it the transverse Doppler effect, but the term is neither
fair nor pretty.

 
It was reasonable and fair nomenclature at the time.
People didn't have relativity in order,
and they discussed the motion of electrons in terms of variable masses.
They discovered that the 'longitudinal mass' and the 'transverse mass'
of the electron were different.
It seemed quite reasonable at the time to extend the notion to light,
because the terminology was already current,
 
Jan

 
The big problem with relativity is the almost complete absence of clear
concepts.
There is no need to talk about transverse mass, longitudinal mass, and
other such joys.

Indeed, but they did not know that, in 1905.
So the experimental discussion was in terms
of longitudinal and transverse masses.
(observed motions were interpreted using Newtonian mechanics)

Later on the same things were renamed to relativistic masses,
(also transverse and longitudinal)
until prople realised that the need for all those disappeared
when the whole theory was formulated relativistically throughhout,
in terms of 4-vectors.

You do like Hachel, you keep it simple, and, like Hercule Poirot, you turn
on your neurons.
"Mass is a relativistic invariant".
Mass is what it is, like a postage stamp is a postage stamp.

Indeed, you are almost there,

Jan

[snip more nonsense to be forgotten]